The Original Praxis of Non-Violence

   Even if the coining of the word “non-violence” is attributed to Gandhi, the sources he turned to in order to give meaning to the word go back in history through people like Tolstoy, Thoreau and especially Jesus,    who appears to be the original source of the “praxis” (action-reflection-action) of non-violence (in the sense of ahimsa and of satyagraha).

   It is important to note that the most salient characteristic of Jesus’ practice is his attention to the sick and excluded. It was a question of the heart. We are told a leper approached him and said, “If you want to, you can cure me.” (Mark 1, 40-45) The Gospel writer goes on to say that Jesus replied, “Of course I want to” and, contrary to a very important norm of his time that forbade all contact with lepers, he touched him, thus making himself as “unclean” as the leper. In another place, we read that Jesus felt compassion for the crowd because they wandered without direction. He is also said to have wept at the tomb of his friend Lazarus before calling him out of the cave. Jesus was filled with compassion for those who were rejected by society and condemned to poverty and solitude. Everything he did flowed from that unceasing love for the people who had no place in the society of his time.

   Jesus was a Galilean, progeny of a people who, at that moment, lived under a Roman military occupation that had established a local puppet government and were supported by a sector his own society (the Pharisees, Sadducees and, above all, the Scribes, who were the lawyers of his time). This sector conspired with the Roman authorities to assure their privileges.  He was wise enough not to attack the empire directly or his public life might have been even shorter than it was. Galilee was a zone of revolt against the occupation but also against the temple religion. There is nothing strange in the fact that Jesus rejected the temple and its rules as maintained by the Scribes. While he cast doubt on the legitimacy of the imperial authority, he reserved his anger and his direct actions for the temple and its defenders.

  His manner was to approach the excluded and to treat them as full persons, worthy of his attention and perfectly capable to participating fully in society. To demonstrate this conviction, he went against all the social norms that posed an obstacle to that participation: he “cured” the blind, the paralyzed, the deaf and the lepers; he “pardoned” those who had no means to comply with all the rules imposed by the authorities; he refused to recognize the legitimacy of norms that prevented doing good on the Sabbath. In so doing, he publicly opposed the authorities who interpreted these gestures as a personal insult.  He went so far as to chase the vendors from the temple. His was a life of classic “direct action.”

   Jesus placed enormous importance on the truth: “The truth will make you free,” that is to say, will liberate you. It is the same word in Hebrew as what religion terms “salvation.” For Jesus, the truth that counts here is that the excluded are persons who deserve recognition for their dignity and who can fully and freely participate in society. It was a fundamental commitment and he accepted the consequences. When the Gospel of Mark says that the people were awed by the fact that he spoke “with authority,”   It points to the inner power that radiated from his conviction of the value of the poor and excluded.

   Those who followed Jesus tried to do the same and paid a great price for being an open and inclusive community. For decades, that first community tried to dialogue with their own Jewish people until finally they were expelled from the synagogue. For two centuries after that, they remained distance from the dominant power of the empire refusing to recognise its demands. Thousands were executed.

   Even after the Christian authorities made a pact with the empire—for motives we can only imagine—there were always those who sought to be faithful to the initial inspiration. The best known of these is Francis Bernardoni, better known as “of Assisi.” It is well to remember that Francis took in hand the great conflict of his time between the state power of the Christians and that of the Muslims. He went, all alone, to ask for a dialogue with the Sheik on the Muslim side and after quite an adventure managed to meet him on Muslim territory. There is no document recounting the details of their conversation but we know that they had a meeting of hearts. Following that the Sheik ordered that Francis be given safe passage back to his own land.

   So then, when Gandhi developed his practice of non-violence, he had before him the example of Jesus and that whole history of the communities who followed him.
   What might that mean for today? The empire and the complicit religion are all too clear and yet it would seem most people have no "eyes to see or ears to hear."  The political empire is led by the "highly industrialized nations" led by the United States. The religion complicit with it is that of money led by the banking system and the major multinational corporations. The great handicape for change today is that the vast majority of the population (certainly of the countries of the "North" are in a situation of life-idebtedness to the system. Most depend totally on that economic religion for their survival, involved in "selling" their freedom in order to have a job and a livelihood. In this respect, the population of the countries of the "North" are in a situation of serfdom, of ecnomic slavery. They cannot imagine, at all, stepping outside the lines that provide their only imaginable option.
 It would seem to me evident then that a non-violent approach would probably follow much of that employed by Jesus in his time. And for that I leave it to your imagination since the power of non-violenct action has always relied on its capacity for inventivent, creativity and surprise. 

Where is the Occupy Montreal Movement Headed?

Occupy Montreal hit the streets running on October 15, 2011 as part of a global moment to begin creating a better world through the occupation of public spaces. The movement in Montreal has its similarities and differences from that in the Rest of Canada, the United States, Europe and the Middle East. It would be important to be able to elaborate these similarities and especially the differences--separately in another essay. Certainly the political, social and cultural context of Quebec provides the movement with its unique identity and challenges.
 In Montreal the movement came to notice thorugh a tent village in the financial district that lasted more than a month. Since then it has expanded and deepened both its organizational capacity and its vision. These winter months are crucial for the future of the movement. It is being taken up as a time to focus the energy and develop the structures that will allow for intense coordinated action for the rest of the year.
 At this point, no official document (that is to say, approved by a General Assembly) outlines the specific goals for the movement during 2012. However, the movement has begun a series of concerted assemblies moving in that direction. From my own personal point of view, there are four major areas of concern that appear to focus the energy of most participants. I list them in no particular order. The movement rejects the oligarchy that currently veils itself as democracy in Quebec (and Canada) and it proposes the creation of direct, participatory democracy at the local level. The movement rejects the financial tyranny that currently dominates world capitalism and proposes an economy of sharing in which no one is excluded and everyone’s needs are met. The movement rejects the damage being done to the environment and proposes a way of living in society that is in harmony with all living creatures who inhabit our Mother Earth. (Currently this includes an effort to provide locally cultivated food to those who need it.) Finally, the disinformation provided by the mass media is rejected and an extraordinary effort is being made to provide alternative sources of both information and analysis. In this respect also a large amount of creative artistic energy is being developed. This list is not exhaustive. There are many other issues being taken up by various groups in the movement but I think most of them would fall under one or another of these major categories.
 The question that naturally flows from this effort to understand what it is that the movement is proposing is how to address these issues. Here too the practice is instructive. First of all, the movement proposes that we begin now, actively to address the issues by “occupying” their spaces with our creative energy. The primary concern, so far, has been to occupy those spaces in a way that encourages other citizens to set aside their fear that nothing can change, to become aware of their own power to make a difference and to begin also to act. The actions tend to create spaces in society for real democracy, inclusion, sharing and sensitivity to Mother Earth. However, there are also those in the movement who are aware that we cannot simply ignore the fact that major systems of government, finance, industry and social organization exist, are diametrically opposed to the goals of the occupy movement and not at all indifferent to its presence. Resistance to the forces of domination are central to the movement.
 ([i]I have placed this also on Atrium and Facebook. It will also appear on my blog--richardrenshaw.blogspot.com[/i])

The Occupy movement is nonviolent and thus inserts itself within the long history of nonviolent movements and nonviolent direct action around the world over many centuries. Every action undertaken by participants in the movement in inscribed within that call to take the issues into our own hands and make a difference, especially at the local level through using that inner power that connects us with one another.
 Challenges are not lacking in this first year of Occupy Montreal. Much of the energy during the winter is focused on improving internal and external communication, that is to say, within the movement in Montreal( and elsewhere) as well as with the larger society of our city. A considerable effort has been made to counter the image of the movement created by the mainstream media by a public presence to provide citizens with specific examples of who is part of the movement, what it stands for and how it operates. Finally, local groups have been established in several Montreal neighbourhoods and evidence considerable vitality and commitment. Those who make up the mouvement, at this point, tend to be largely young (20-40) with a significant representation of those who are somewhat older. They tend to be well educated and engaged already in community groups, NGOs or working professionally.
 When Spring arrives a few weeks from now, Montreal will witness a flourishing of public activity supported by the movement. How this develops and is received will be an important factor in laying the foundations for a long-term presence in Montreal that makes a difference and that impacts on the global scene.  ----- Richard Renshaw

Threats to society

A report on threats to the global society has just been released for the Davos group. It is certainly worth a read in the light of my earlier reflection on Societal Breakdown and its sequel.  I found  the link on the front page of Le Devoir today.

A brief note about death

From www.layoutsparks.com

     These January days, riding out into the country, I observe the bare trees along the sides of the roads. Black trunks send out blacker branches into the grey sky. They appear to be quite dead, ready for the fireplace.  And yet, in few weeks they will be drawing sap up into the tips of their buds as they prepare to burst back into life. Their death is but a moment in a longer cycle of life, of resurrection.

As I grow into the later chapters of life, I find that the “death dimension” takes on a larger role. This is far from a question of nostalgia or moroseness. I am simply paying more attention to how the factor of death reshapes, colours and provides significant perspectives on what I experience here and now and what I feel when I try to make sense of my life at this point.

     I begin to loosen my grip on the projects and achievements of my personal life and attend more to another dimension that provides a deeper flavour and richness.

As my life becomes more ephemeral and as I take stock of the fact that the colony of cells that constitute my body begins to show signs of becoming more fragile and frayed, life also turns to a dimension that I can only call more “eternal” in the sense of being freed from the need to show a pay-off. Death helps me see that the illusions of the ego are just that, that the “great leveler” is a gift to put everything in perspective and that the call is increasingly to give thanks and to let go so that life in all its splendour can flourish in its own way, a way that goes infinitely beyond my ego.